Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report I just read in Mashable, Pirate Bay is coming to Facebook. Writer Ben Parr says that The Pirate Bay site now includes links under torrents to 'Share on Facebook.' Once posted to a profile, the Facebook member's friends can click the link on Facebook to begin the download right away, provided he or she already has a torrenting client installed. I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels. No doubt, if their song files were downloaded through this method, the record companies would sit back for awhile, derive profit from the promotional excitement generated for their dying industry, and then — armed with Facebook's data — sue the pants off all the hapless Facebook users who fell for it."

Nothing in the.torrent file itself is illegal. The **AA still needs to actually show that the person was illictly downloading the copyrighted material. If I downloaded every.torrent on TPB for archival purposes, I would be doing nothing wrong.

are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.

are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.

I know that Sweden != US, but this is the crux of the TPB case. Even if this were the case, if all that they could prove was that you downloaded the.torrent, it would be Facebook that is in trouble.

Making Facebook a target of the RIAA may actually be a brilliant stroke for TPB, bringing to bear their extensive resources to the fight.

It is inevitable that the RIAA is going to bump heads with some huge corporations that won't push over as easily as the small-town senior citizens and college students that have been the RIAA's current targets. After all, one could say that AT&T and Verizon also "enable" people to download copyright-"protected" material. You could say that Cisco "enables" people to do the same. You could say that Microsoft and Apple are also culpable.

All this does is hasten the day when the RIAA is forced to realize they can't win.

After all, one could say that AT&T and Verizon also "enable" people to download copyright-"protected" material

AFACT (The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) obviously agrees with you filing a lawsuit [whirlpool.net.au] against Australian ISP iiNet in November last year.

"The action was filed by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network, the Australian licensee of some of the infringed works".

"Enabling" downloading of copyright material is a highly dubious, very unclear "legal" standard. As such, it doesn't exist in the form that you think it does (or that the RIAA think it does) and it isn't present in a great many legal systems. You can see why - the person who supplies the computer keyboard/mouse is "enabling" the user to download a copyrighted work. So is the monitor manufacturer, and the ISP, and the electricity company.

Thus the legal standard that is required for proof of such actions needs to be substantially higher than "what the RIAA thinks is enabling". Additionally, jurisdictional boundaries greatly interfere here (the RIAA can be as interested in me as they like, but I don't live in America), as do other relevant laws (i.e. the "right" to free speech, fair use, etc.) and the requirement of hard evidence that not only do I have the copyright material in my possession without a licence grant, but also that my *intention* was to then breach copyright by distributing further etc.

Additionally, I have saved somewhere a news report from BBC News in which representatives of several major UK record companies state that they allow people to download/convert music they already own to use on their own devices, as many times as they like. This is quite damning and would protect certain usage of certain torrents, whether or not the official word on the copyright laws in my country say so.

Also, the legality or otherwise of a torrent file in even a single country has not been legally locked down (roll on April for PirateBay) and thus it's almost 100% certain that any court case would set a precedent in the particular country that hosts it. Until then, the whole thing is just a legal grey area and thus someone could easily do the above mentioned archiving, with a good technical knowledge and an intention of not breaching copyright, and not be breaking ANY existing laws at all, espeically if they can provide good reason (such as the whole "a torrent isn't its contents" argument which SHOULD damn well be correct).

Don't let every legal threat you ever hear form a legal fact in your mind. 99% of things never go to court and 50% of those that do fail miserably. Otherwise, bank charges in the UK would be in the order of £5, not £50, Linux would be cleared or convicted of breaching several hundred patents, Microsoft would be dead in the water and I'd be able to eat peanuts without having to read "May contain nuts".

If I post a piece of paper on a telephone pole with the addresses of all banks in the city in which it is posted and someone uses that information to rob one of the banks on that list, am I guilty of 'facilitating' said robbery?
If I leave a stack of CDs in a box by the sidewalk in front of my house with a sign that says' "Take one, leave one."; does that make me guilty of copyright infringement?

I'm glad we piss you off. You don't "get it" either, dude. Copyright infringement IS NOT a criminal offense. It is a civil infraction. Allow me to paing a picture for you. If you were to go through my hometown, and kiss the ass of every single person who has EVER infringed on a copyright, then you MIGHT HAVE kissed the ass of a criminal. However, there would be no guarantee that you had done so. Copyright is NOT a felony, it is not a misdemeanor, it doesn't even warrant a summons to court by a law enforcement officer. The ONLY WAY to be brought to court for copyright infringement is by way of a civil action, brought by the complainant's lawyers. IF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WERE A CRIME, there would be police stings just like the pedophile stings that are aired on public television. Have you ever seen such a sting? No? Alright, stop talking foolishness. You people who THINK you know it all are very damned annoying to those of us who do.

Additionally, I have saved somewhere a news report from BBC News in which representatives of several major UK record companies state that they allow people to download/convert music they already own to use on their own devices, as many times as they like. This is quite damning and would protect certain usage of certain torrents, whether or not the official word on the copyright laws in my country say so.

Don't fuck around. Post that right now. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but since that was a public announcement it could be very well seen as an interpretation of their very own legal contracts with customers. Everybody should have a copy of that to maintain that as a backup as it could be easily used against them in the future.

There is no other way to say it, that's wonderful:)

P.S - You just know those representatives got slapped later. You just know it.

I am really surprised by this each and every time I hear it; if I provide a torrent to someone, I am not the violator, though the **IA argues that making available is a copyright infringement it is more a case of being an accessory to a copyright infringement; the funny part to me is that in trying to prove their case they pull files from said 'violator' and use that as proof; If they argue that they aren't violating the copyright because they are owner/agents the accessory charge is also null and void, if

are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.

I'm enabling them to download pirated content if I'm their cable provider. SueSueSue!

Oh wait, I'm enabling them to download pirated content if I'm their power company! SueSueSue!

And I'm enabling them to download pirated content by selling them a computer without rootkits preinstalle

If I downloaded every.torrent on TPB for archival purposes, I would be doing nothing wrong.

That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be doing something that the court feels is illegal.We need to come to grips with the fact that our court system doesn't work based on facts, it works based on feelings.

Yes, but downloading a.torrent file, you haven't done anything to contribute to the piracy of any copyrighted materials.

But the courts feel like you did, so you can be convicted for it.Its sad, and I think it speaks to the way that geek-minds work...we're analytical.

We look at a box and when somebody asks us to describe it, we say things like "It is royal-blue, it is 14cm tall and a perfect cube."Sadly, the judges would respond by"Well...I think the box is kindof squarish, it looks like it was probably used as a doorstop for a few years".

Facts vs. Feelings. This is the problem behind nearly every major legal battle that geeks are fighting. The facts support us, people's emotions do not.

The crux of the difference between geek-think and law-think here is that typically the legal issues turn not on the assets themselves, but on their provenance -- which is not an intrinsic property of the assets, but rather a sort of implicit metadata that requires extra bookkeeping to track reliably.

The legality of a song-file depends on how you got it, not the fact that it's a song by a major label artist. Downloaded from a properly licensed online store? No problem. The same exact sequence of bits, downloaded from someplace shady? Problem.

Similarly, the legality of a stack of $100 notes likewise depends on how you got it. If you got it by, say, making and selling custom cabinetry, you're probably fine, but if you got it by unauthorized sale of controlled substances, and the law catches on, you'll have problems.

FYI, if you find yourself agreeing with the parent post, you probably have not ever read a Supreme Court or Appeals Court opinion, or decent law review article.

There are of course a number of frankly idiotic opinions, but on the whole judges (or at least good judges, i.e., the ones whose opinions you read in classes) are a fairly analytical bunch. You kind of have to be.

The impression I get when I ponder the relationship between the judiciary and the legislative branches is that we have a lot of well-educated, well-spoken judges trying to make sense of laws that have been cobbled together by a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at one another. It's a little depressing.

Perhaps. But could **AA ask for a better "lead?" Take a look at some of the (blatantly illegal) things that the **AA and its cronies have done. They probably wouldn't shy away from using Facebook as a method to choose who to target with any new blatantly illegal schemes they come up with and think they can get away with.

Regardless, making it public knowledge that you pirate/support piracy is probably a stupid idea if you ever plan on having a job.

If they were perfect checksums, yes, you might have a point. But there are potentially many, many, many different things that can have the exact same checksum but be totally different. For that to be true then the same people have the copyright of any of those things which doesn't make sense.

Please don't hide behind the fact that most checksums are not provably perfect. I want to fight such ludicrous arguments from the other poster better than that.

Even if it were perfect, is still does not make a valid point. A checksum by its very nature is a fair use by-product. It exists *only* to verify that the sequence of bits (the copyrighted data) is most likely (usually highly likely) to be the same as the one the checksum was produced fro

Under your definition, the ISBN, number of pages in the book, number of spelling mistakes in the book, and even the letters used in the book, are all derivative works and are therefore is copyright. If that's then, every book out there is a copyright violation since all books other there use letters which are derivative works. Quoting an ISBN would also be a copyright violation, as would be a description of the book.

But, the hashes used in the.torrent file are directly computed from frame data. This isnt a summary. This isnt a ISBN or UPC label.

These checksums serve only 1 purpose: and that is to properly put back together any number of files to their starting point. Hence, a mathematically transformed derivative work. And if there wasnt the movie file, those checksums would mean diddly squat, because those checksum numbers represent a cryptographic transformation of the so

> These checksums serve only 1 purpose: and that is to properly put back together any number of files to their starting point.> And if there wasnt the movie file, those checksums would mean diddly squat,

In other words, once you remove all the voodoo-to-the-average-joe mathspeak, its just a glorified URL link.

Linking has nothing to do with derivative works, no matter how much you dress it up in math or tech or business jargon.

But leaving that aside a moment, as far as "math transformed derivative work"

That's true (well, depending on your location it may or may not be, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it is). But adding every one of those legal.torrent files to a BitTorrent client would result in a monolithic amount of copyright infringement. Finding who downloaded the torrent file is potentially very easy; associating that information with an IP address in the P2P swarm is equally easy. You do the math.

No, downloading Metallica_St_Anger.torrent is the same as downloading Ponies_n_kittens_playing.jpg from a website.

If you send the downloaded torrent file to a torrent application and allow it to connect and download files, then you are downloading the (possibly) illegal content, and usually, but not always, uploading the same content to someone else. There are quite a few torrents that I've downloaded where the Upload is 0kb.

True, but the URL to an image doesn't point directly to the file either, simply the server that (may) contain the file, or know which server does, and a way of checking to see its the right file (name).

The actual image would be something like C:\MySites\OMGPonies\Content\Images\Ponies_n_kittens.jpg

I'm still having trouble with the idea that an arbitrary string of ones and zeroes could be "illegal".

If I generate a sequence of random numbers, write it to disk, and it happens to be, say, a copyrighted song when fed into an audio player, am I breaking the law? Who gets to determine if it's the same as the song?

Besides, any song can have an infinite number of representations. If I write an audio decoder that takes a Win32 dll and plays it as audio, am I breaking the law if one of the system files in my li

This is the problem with geeks, everything needs to be formally and absolutely defined... The nice thing about law is that many parts are actually quite well written -- written in ways that allow new inventions to be handled within the the same legislation. Some specific areas of copyright have some problems at the moment, but your questions aren't really problematic.

Something that might help understand copyright, is realizing that it really is about "right to copy": It's not about bits, bytes or codecs, it

From what I've learned, yes, you can. To take a more realistic example, if two poets, working independently, write two short poems that are "substantially similar" or even identical (meaning that had one relied upon the other's work, there would be a finding of infringement), they both have separate copyrights, and if one distributes the work, it's not infringing upon the other's copyright.

And if I download a.mp3, introduce some salt, recode it as an.ogg, and claim it came from/dev/random; how do you prove it?

Therein lies the rub. To return to the example of poets, if one of the poets is famous, and his poem has been widely pu

Yes, downloading a.torrent is not a big deal. You could simply argue that you clicked the.torrent link, had not client installed, and nothing much happened, so you went on with your day. That's not the issue though.

If you download a torrent, and your system loads a client and starts contacting a tracker, then THAT is when big media and their minions can notice. They connect to the trackers, and look at who else is listed as peers on those trackers. It's got not

Yes, the DMCA actually has something beneficial to the world (a shocker, yes I know), it is the safe harbor provisions that basically lets FB say that they can't control what users post (though they do have to respond to takedown requests). But similarly, this is nothing but a link to a link that may contain copyrighted materials. I highly doubt that it is illegal to link to a link that may contain copyright infringing materials, it just doesn't make any sense if it is because that would be like saying that

Are there any laws that protect Facebook from illegal content that a user might post?

I don't think it's Facebook that would get sued. As a general rule the RIAA prefers to pick on the people who have no ability to fight back, which in this case would be the Facebook customers. Also Facebook would likely have a DMCA defense, which would not be available to the customers themselves.

Facebook has never given a crap about which apps run on it. They allow all sorts of apps on there that are nothing more than viral scams designed to steal user data. And, as a corporate machine, why wouldn't they? Every time one of those apps sends a message to a user, that user comes back to their site, might click on the invite friends link, and expand the facebook empire further.

Anyway... there's one good side to all this. Facebook is HUGE. Quite a big portion of the whole internet is using it, and

Just because the term 'has been, or still" is used to refer to what you linked to doesn't mean it is correct. "Automatic" is modified by "semi" for a reason.

It is correct. "Automatic", when applied to handguns, refers to the automatic nature of using some of the force of the firing explosion to drive the works of the gun. An automatic handgun harnesses that force to eject the spent casing, bring another into firing position, and sometimes cock the gun. Previously, as with a single or double-action revolver, the cylinder was moved by the cocking of the hammer or by pulling the trigger. That's the "automatic" part. It need not refer to the continuous firing mechanism of a fully-automatic weapon.

The full name of the M1911 handgun is Automatic Pistol, Caliber.45, M1911 [wikipedia.org]. Indeed, there are even automatic revolvers [wikipedia.org]. The use of the term "automatic" to refer to a semi-automatic handgun has existed for over 100 years, and continues to this day. Whenever someone says "automatic", and it is not followed by "rifle" or preceded by "fully", they almost always are speaking of a semi-automatic handgun. I have never heard it used otherwise. If someone says, "I shot off a few rounds with my automatic", or "I took my automatic to the range", it is safe to assume they are referring to a semi-automatic handgun.

I consider the blurring of automatic and semi-automatic small arms to be an Overton window thing, done on purpose, by people with an agenda.

No. The term "semi-automatic" is a neologism just like "wooden baseball bat". It did not need qualification until a newer technology became widespread. I have never sensed an ulterior motive from people using the term "automatic". It's simply a descriptive name, which has been used for 100 years.

Saying "I am taking my automatic to shoot a few rounds" when your gun is a semi-automatic is wrong.

No, it's not. If you were to say "fully-automatic", "automatic rifle", or even "automatic weapon", it would be safe to assume that you were referring to a continuous-fire type gun. But, if you simply say "automatic", without any other qualifiers (as in the example you provide), you are referring to a semi-auto handgun. It is simply common usage, in addition to being correct.

Automatic is referred to the type of weapon that when you hold the trigger it shoots more then one round, while semi-auto refers to a weapon that requires multiple pulls of the trigger to fire more then one round.

No, that's a common misconception. If a gun is "automatic", it simply means that one or more of the actions usually required of the sho

It's rather difficult (and expensive) to buy an automatic rifle in the US. Unless you're an illegal mexican immigrant. Then you just need to show up at a gun show and you can buy automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc and take them back to mexico.

If I'm already breaking the law couldn't I add lieing to my list of offenses and claim to be an illegal mexican immigrant?

I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels.

Knowing the Internet community at large, I think there is probably no risk of this happening.:p

What the *AAs are losing through piracy, more than sales and such, is control. The buzz "center" is moving from the old media into the piratebay's top100. Essentially. Such a development will eventually kill off the content-for-money industry (though a content-with-sponsoring may rise to take it's place, you'll notice that the TV industry is much more laid back).

This is a step in that direction, so look for a quick and angry reprisal, legally warranted or not.

I always thought that the facebook link was a sort of civil disobedience type deal at worst, or at best, a humorous poke at how every site on the planet has Digg this, facebook this, mixx it, etc attached to every page generated.

Even if they win, the risk of law changes is pretty big. So I think they are going whole-hog while they can. The VPN? nice side business, and may allow them to keep going with their ideals. The Facebook thing? Spread the joy, make it easier for everyone to pillage while they can. Possibly even get the benefit of mixing Facebook (now a tracker) into the mess.

I hope the guys at PB win this one (and the next as well), because they are the boys on the

It works simply: The Pirate Bay site now includes links under torrents to âoeShare on Facebookâ. Once posted to your profile, your Facebook friends can click the link on Facebook to begin the download right away, provided they already have a torrenting client installed.

wtf am I missing? So, I used the Ubuntu [thepiratebay.org] example given by TorrentFreak [torrentfreak.com] (linked in the mashable article) and hit their Share on Facebook button. It posted to my FB profile as expected, but when I hit the link in my profile,

For as awesome as NewYorkCountryLawyer is with technical/legal issues, I think he didn't do precisely what you did yourself. Its the same for me, it takes me to the torrent page instead of the.torrent download. All it is is a specially crafted URL that instructs facebook to ask for your login, (or sample your cookies/authenticated sessions) and post the link to your profile. Nothing more.

For as awesome as NewYorkCountryLawyer is with technical/legal issues, I think he didn't do precisely what you did yourself. Its the same for me, it takes me to the torrent page instead of the.torrent download. All it is is a specially crafted URL that instructs facebook to ask for your login, (or sample your cookies/authenticated sessions) and post the link to your profile. Nothing more.

Thank you very much. Now we have a record of your visit. Now we can later claim that you are a copyright infringer, even though we have no evidence of your actually having infringed any copyrights, just as we did in our p2p file sharing cases.

I'll bet you wouldn't. Not if you were the defendant and had to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars to show the Judge how frivolous it is. Do you know how many completely frivolous and nonsensical things the RIAA lawyers say every day in court, and get away with?

> ripping off artists so that leeches don't have to pay for their work.

Dude. Come. Fucking. On. We have 2009. Everybody and their dog has a computer, which is designed to copy stuff. Also we have broadband which is, again, designed to... move stuff around the world. So is what youre actually pointlessly advocating is that we collectively should... actually what? Abstain from using a common technology in order to make absurdly archaic 50's business models of "manufacturing and selling single copies" viable in day and age when everybody _can_ manufacture and distribute those copies themselves? Yawn.

If you and your fellow artists cannot bear the thought of your works becomming part of our culture and shared with other people, then stop producing and publishing them. If you cant manage to make money from the fact that people actually like your works and actively share them with their friends, go flip burgers, maybe thats where your real talent lies. However, wide-scale censorship, which is what you and your likes are proposing all the fucking time, wont work, so forget that idea really fast.

And its still their job to find out how to do that. Back in the 50s, they were able to sell copies of stuff, since copying was hard. In 2009, neither copying nor distribution is hard any more, so people make their copies themselves and distribute them. If the artist completely used to rely on selling copies to make a living, he now has to adapt. IF he refuses to, he'll have to go flip burgers.

> You seem to think all the people out there illegally copying files are somehow noble

Nope, never implied that.

> and if they liked it, pay the perform(s)> or if they didn't like it, delete it never view it again.

Also never said that.

> 1) don't have permission to copy

We dont have to ask for a permission to exchange informaiton and share stuff. Everybody who thinks that, like you seem to, is mistaken.

> 2) have not paid

Since i do the copying and the distribution myself, i dont have to pay.

> 3) and are NOT exercising Fair Use

I am excercising Fair Use which _I_ defined.

> Committing a crime

I dont consider it to be a crime.

> Stealing from the artist and those who have invested money in producing/distributing> the thing you want to copy

Copying stuff and sharing information with other people is not stealing, no matter how much youd like it to be.

> Removing incentive for the producers to renew the artist due to reduced sales

Their problem. (You know, you and they can still go flip burgers if you cant cope with the fact that we have 2009 and practically everybody learned how to use a networked computer.)

> If you think differently,

Which I do

> then you have the ethics of a common thief

But I have the luck that its not you laying out our ethics code.

> and I'd love to see you in jail wedded to Bubba the ass fucker.

Since you have to call for physical violence and violent anal rape of anybody who doesnt agree to your ageing ideology, you lose.

> 3) and are NOT exercising Fair UseI am excercising Fair Use which _I_ defined.

"Committing a crime"I dont consider it to be a crime

I won't state my personal opinion, but philosophers such as Rawls would argue that by being part of society you don't have the right to do "whatever you want". You have implicitly agreed to a social contract [wikipedia.org] and if the rest of society thinks that it is a crime, then what you personally consider it to be doesn't matter.

Of course, there are other philosophers who don't agree with social contract theory. I'm not sure they'd stand behind you though.

Thats ok, since my whole point is that it actually doesn't. Only the written letter of the law does, but since it is, at least in the case of copyright, that much detached from the actual sense of right and wrong of the society around me, i do not at all have a moral urge to feel bound by it.

Because it doesn't make any sense to keep library books. Because, by keeping a library book you are depriving someone else of that book. On the other hand, if I share somesong.mp3 and 400 people download it, me and those 400 people have a full, working copy of somesong.mp3, we can all listen to it at once. If I have Harry Potter checked out of the library, 400 people will have to wait for me to finish or return Harry Potter before they can read it. USA copyright law was based on that. In the 1700-1800s when it was written, to make a copy of a work under copyright I would have to have a printing press (or spend an absurd amount of time with paper and pen). When the photocopier was invented, people tried to apply the same law to it, it didn't really work, however, because copiers are not networked, enforcement was low, so the public didn't suffer much. Today though, we have the same ancient laws attempting to be applied to digital works while strictly enforcing them. This does not work, and today the artists who create works are suffering from it.

Yes. If you buy 1 computer file, it is the same as buying 2 identical computer files. With computer files, there are two relevant quantities: none (don't have a copy), and one (have a copy). If you have more than one copy, it is no more valuable than having one copy.

And it follows that if 1 copy was purchased, then 400 copies were purchased. That's how computers work, that's what they do. You can want reality to be different, but it isn't. You aren't getting something for nothing, because those 399

The pirate bay exists simply to share stuff, illegal or not. Show me something where the developers/maintainers of TPB have said they designed it with the main intent being to distribute illegal content. Just because 'illegal' content is prevalent doesn't imply it's initial intent.

Slashdot, has hordes of trolls, but it wasn't designed for trolling.

On another note, it doesn't mean that's what it will be used for on Facebook. Facebook currently doesn't have any way for people to share files directly, you can

The pirate bay exists simply to share stuff, illegal or not. Show me something where the developers/maintainers of TPB have said they designed it with the main intent being to distribute illegal content. Just because 'illegal' content is prevalent doesn't imply it's initial intent.

This is a disingenuous argument. It doesn't matter what the creators or maintainers say or don't (ok, it matter legally, but ethically, it doens't). TPB is use *primarily* to distribute torrents, locators, to copyrighted mater

Sort of. A lot of people use it to break copyright of an still-being-sold bit of work. I'll admit, I do indeed download copyrighted material to things impossible to buy anymore from the copyright holder. BeOS builds, a copy of Trilobytes 11th hour, Adobe Photoshop 4. Who am I ripping off here?

Pretty obvious why this is an anonymous reply.... Palm does not and will not sell BeOS. Adobe does not an WILL not sell Photoshop 4 (official reply "... is no longer supported, therefore is not being sold..."). And "The Learning Company" DOES NOT hold copyright to these works. They bought overstock in bulk and sell them for a pittance IF you can even FIND THEM (Look at their website... "As of December 17, 2008, The Learning Company® products are no longer available via the Web and will only be sold at

they have been loosing money from their lawsuits last time i checked the ##'s

Who is going to tell them to stop? Someone who is going to be immediately sued, that's who.

Record companies: "Listen RIAA, we've decided your services are no longer needed, and we're not going to be giving you any more money. Frankly, you've been disgusting idiots, have eroded any sympathy we might have had in fighting piracy, and have been failing to even win in courts."